Patrick Fleenor, a libertarian-ish economist, wrote this in the Christian Science Monitor:

Take the administration’s signature achievement: enactment of healthcare reform, aka Obamacare. This legislation subsidizes health insurance for low- and middle-income groups with taxes on high-earners, leveling material wealth but dampening economic growth by encouraging everyone to pare back on their work effort.

High-income workers have an incentive to work less since they get to keep less of what they earn. Low- and moderate-income workers face the same incentive because they can now maintain the same standard of living with even less effort.

To summarize:

High-income workers

will have less incentive to work

because they will keep less of what they earn.

Low- and moderate-income workers

will have less incentive to work

because they will keep more of what they earn.

That's called the old switcheroo. Make the "incentive" for high-income workers the money they keep, but for other workers their standard of living, and conclude that there should be no taxation/redistribution. But you could assign the incentives in the reverse fashion and conclude the exact opposite. How about that?